A relative strength
Turnovers forced
19.0% · rank 66 of 366 · 32 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Little Rock
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.275
-8.0 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
12–202025–26 recorded finals
101.9Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
109.9Adjusted defense · lower is better
68.2Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Little Rock.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
12–2032 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 68.5Mean opponent adj. net -6.4 · 30 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
50.1%32 games · higher is betterRank 267 / 366 · 27th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
51.6%32 games · lower is betterRank 219 / 366 · 40th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
18.7%32 games · lower is betterRank 312 / 366 · 15th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
19.0%32 games · higher is betterRank 66 / 366 · 82th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
32.2%32 games · higher is betterRank 141 / 366 · 62th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
35.9%32 games · lower is betterRank 358 / 366 · 2th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
28.3%32 games · higher is betterRank 338 / 366 · 8th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
32.3%32 games · lower is betterRank 121 / 366 · 67th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 103.0 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 108.2 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 48.6% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 51.4% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 35.6% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 34.6% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 30.9% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 40.1% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 67.5% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 69.6% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 53.1% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 52.7% | 32 | Opponent assists / FGM. |
Window changes describe the historical sample; they do not refit the preseason model. Full-season ranks require 10 games. Percentiles compare qualifying programs in the model’s rated field. Source coverage can differ by metric.
NCAA source context / 2025–26
What did the possessions look like?
2,195 source possession rows across 32 recorded team-games. These are descriptive NCAA source aggregates: they do not assign individual credit or enter the forecast.
02 / The film queue
Turn a number into a question.
A relative strength
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
32.3% · rank 121 of 366 · 32 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
A closer look
Free-throw attempt rate
28.3% · rank 338 of 366 · 32 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
A closer look
Opponent offensive rebound rate
35.9% · rank 358 of 366 · 32 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
These are stat-led film prompts, not verified explanations of a scheme. Lower-ranked factors can still be above average. A five-point-or-closer final occurred 7 times in the selected window; Little Rock won 2. That small-sample record is not a clutch-skill estimate.
03 / How the season moved
Read beyond the average.
● Offense● Opponent offenseRaw points / 100 possessions · game order
Mar 5, 2026 · neutral vs Lindenwood · L 62–72 · offense 80.1 / defense 93.0
Higher offense and lower opponent offense are better. Opponent strength and venue are not adjusted here. Missing paired boxes create gaps.
Open the game-by-game scouting log · 32 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LindenwoodMar 5, 2026 · neutral | L 62–72 | 304 | 80.1 | 93.0 | 77.4 | 37.3 | 20.7 | 33.3 |
| So IndianaFeb 28, 2026 · home | W 89–70 | 338 | 132.8 | 104.5 | 67.0 | 68.1 | 13.4 | 25.9 |
| Morehead StFeb 27, 2026 · home | L 70–76 | 276 | 108.5 | 117.8 | 64.5 | 48.3 | 12.4 | 33.3 |
| SE MissouriFeb 21, 2026 · home | L 65–70 | 243 | 95.3 | 102.6 | 68.2 | 41.4 | 13.2 | 25.0 |
| UT MartinFeb 20, 2026 · home | W 67–65 | 234 | 112.3 | 109.0 | 59.7 | 54.9 | 20.1 | 33.3 |
| E IllinoisFeb 14, 2026 · road | L 72–78 | 327 | 108.4 | 117.5 | 66.4 | 50.8 | 16.6 | 36.1 |
| W IllinoisFeb 13, 2026 · road | W 77–58 | 362 | 108.7 | 81.8 | 70.9 | 50.7 | 9.9 | 30.8 |
| SIUEFeb 7, 2026 · home | L 61–71 | 231 | 90.5 | 105.3 | 67.4 | 38.0 | 10.4 | 32.0 |
| LindenwoodFeb 6, 2026 · home | L 74–79 | 304 | 109.2 | 116.6 | 67.8 | 47.7 | 13.3 | 35.9 |
| UT MartinFeb 4, 2026 · road | L 52–55 | 234 | 83.8 | 88.6 | 62.1 | 48.1 | 27.4 | 27.6 |
| Tennessee TechJan 31, 2026 · road | L 77–87 | 315 | 113.2 | 127.8 | 68.1 | 57.0 | 13.2 | 23.1 |
| Tennessee StJan 30, 2026 · road | L 63–70 | 204 | 91.2 | 101.3 | 69.1 | 41.0 | 18.8 | 32.6 |
| SE MissouriJan 23, 2026 · road | L 65–70 | 243 | 95.6 | 102.9 | 68.0 | 44.2 | 11.8 | 21.6 |
| W IllinoisJan 17, 2026 · home | W 86–79 | 362 | 127.4 | 117.0 | 67.5 | 56.3 | 10.4 | 27.3 |
| E IllinoisJan 16, 2026 · home | W 74–63 | 327 | 114.9 | 97.8 | 64.4 | 51.7 | 18.6 | 44.1 |
| LindenwoodJan 10, 2026 · road | W 82–74 | 304 | 119.4 | 107.8 | 68.7 | 56.5 | 18.9 | 46.7 |
| SIUEJan 9, 2026 · road | W 73–70 | 231 | 116.4 | 111.6 | 62.7 | 46.7 | 11.2 | 42.1 |
| Tennessee StJan 3, 2026 · home | L 79–84 | 204 | 106.2 | 112.9 | 74.4 | 49.2 | 18.8 | 33.3 |
| Tennessee TechJan 1, 2026 · home | W 77–58 | 315 | 113.6 | 85.6 | 67.8 | 58.5 | 16.2 | 22.6 |
| Wilms BaptistDec 23, 2025 · home | W 98–84 | Unrated | 114.7 | 98.3 | 85.4 | 57.4 | 23.4 | 40.5 |
| So IndianaDec 19, 2025 · road | W 77–62 | 338 | 114.4 | 92.1 | 67.3 | 59.1 | 25.3 | 39.4 |
| Morehead StDec 17, 2025 · road | L 64–78 | 276 | 86.1 | 104.9 | 74.4 | 43.4 | 18.8 | 17.6 |
| West VirginiaDec 10, 2025 · road | L 58–90 | 52 | 92.3 | 143.2 | 62.8 | 41.4 | 17.5 | 32.5 |
| Arkansas StDec 7, 2025 · home | L 78–90 | 126 | 108.8 | 125.6 | 71.7 | 59.6 | 12.6 | 9.4 |
| C ArkansasDec 4, 2025 · road | L 47–85 | 259 | 65.8 | 118.9 | 71.5 | 38.8 | 29.4 | 26.2 |
| S IllinoisNov 30, 2025 · road | L 65–74 | 124 | 101.8 | 115.9 | 63.9 | 57.7 | 25.1 | 31.0 |
| Texas StNov 22, 2025 · road | L 56–65 | 228 | 86.7 | 100.7 | 64.6 | 40.7 | 23.2 | 31.6 |
| Murray StNov 19, 2025 · road | L 68–89 | 130 | 102.6 | 134.3 | 66.3 | 45.9 | 21.1 | 43.2 |
| Ball StateNov 16, 2025 · road | W 68–62 | 273 | 101.3 | 92.4 | 67.1 | 61.8 | 34.3 | 46.2 |
| MarquetteNov 13, 2025 · road | L 49–89 | 46 | 73.3 | 133.1 | 66.9 | 40.4 | 29.9 | 31.4 |
| MilwaukeeNov 11, 2025 · road | L 72–92 | 218 | 103.6 | 132.3 | 69.5 | 55.4 | 21.6 | 25.8 |
| Ark BaptistNov 5, 2025 · home | W 92–63 | Unrated | 117.4 | 80.4 | 78.4 | 59.4 | 19.1 | 45.5 |
04 / The people behind the possessions
Personnel and workload.
2025–26 recorded affiliations, independent of the split selector. This is not a confirmed 2026–27 roster. Inspect roster observations →
| Player | GP | MIN/G | PTS/G | REB/G | AST/G | TS% | Est. usage | Usage games | AST/TO | 3PA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Johnathan LawsonG | 31 | 36.7 | 16.2 | 4.1 | 4.1 | 53.4 | 23.4% | 31 | 2.0031 games | 22231 games |
| Braxton BaylessG | 32 | 33.0 | 10.2 | 3.9 | 3.3 | 49.3 | 19.5% | 32 | 1.3832 games | 9732 games |
| Cameron WallaceF | 32 | 28.6 | 12.7 | 6.9 | 1.8 | 50.6 | 24.7% | 32 | 1.0632 games | 1932 games |
| Tuongthach GatkekF | 29 | 31.4 | 9.4 | 5.9 | 2.0 | 60.6 | 15.1% | 29 | 1.1429 games | 429 games |
| Kachi NzehF | 32 | 28.4 | 11.7 | 4.8 | 1.3 | 56.9 | 21.4% | 32 | 0.7132 games | 11832 games |
| Truman Claytor IVF | 28 | 16.2 | 6.3 | 1.5 | 0.7 | 49.2 | 23.6% | 28 | 0.5828 games | 6728 games |
| Caleb PennyfeatherF | 29 | 11.8 | 2.2 | 2.3 | 0.3 | 44.7 | 12.3% | 29 | 1.0029 games | 129 games |
| Tracy Steele Jr.G | 24 | 10.9 | 1.7 | 1.2 | 0.6 | 42.5 | 12.6% | 24 | 0.7024 games | 2124 games |
Usage is a minutes-based estimate over the stated sample, not a direct measure of on-court possessions. Low-minute estimates are noisy. AST/TO is unavailable when recorded turnovers are zero; missing fields are never filled with zero.
05 / Recruiting evidence
What changed around Little Rock?
This panel keeps dated school publications, source-listed roster observations and prior college production in separate evidence lanes. A source record does not establish eligibility, availability or a future role.
15Source-listed players
11Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
100%Prior minutes represented
Role workload watch
Which source-listed role is represented?
Prior minutes are grouped by the source-reported position on the current listing. “Unrepresented” means prior minutes not attached to a same-program listing in this release; it does not establish a departure, transfer, eligibility or expected role.
| Role | Listed | Prior minutes | Returning minutes | Incoming prior minutes | Returning share | Unrepresented |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Guard | 9 | 2,728 | 2,728 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 6 | 3,672 | 3,672 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,400 minutes).
No dated school announcement is in the selected review file for this program. The roster row below is observation-only; absence of a reviewed announcement does not mean the program made no move.
No announced additions are in the reviewed file for this program.
Roster observation
Who is listed in the source release?
15 source-listed players. Prior rates below are attached by exact source ID where available; missing values remain missing.
| Player | Observation | Prior MPG | Prior PPG | Prior TS% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Johnathan Lawson →G | Same programLittle Rock Trojans | 36.7 | 16.2 | 53.4% |
| Braxton Bayless →G | Same programLittle Rock Trojans | 33.0 | 10.2 | 49.3% |
| Cameron Wallace →F | Same programLittle Rock Trojans | 28.6 | 12.7 | 50.6% |
| Tuongthach Gatkek →F | Same programLittle Rock Trojans | 31.4 | 9.4 | 60.6% |
| Kachi Nzeh →F | Same programLittle Rock Trojans | 28.4 | 11.7 | 56.9% |
| Truman Claytor IV →F | Same programLittle Rock Trojans | 16.2 | 6.3 | 49.2% |
| Caleb Pennyfeather →F | Same programLittle Rock Trojans | 11.8 | 2.2 | 44.7% |
| Tracy Steele Jr. →G | Same programLittle Rock Trojans | 10.9 | 1.7 | 42.5% |
| Terrion Burgess →F | Same programLittle Rock Trojans | 23.5 | 7.5 | 71.0% |
| Joseph Thomas →G | Same programLittle Rock Trojans | 10.5 | 3.2 | 52.0% |
| Christian Hughes →G | Same programLittle Rock Trojans | 15.0 | 0.9 | 19.1% |
| Kellen Robinson →G | No prior appearance observedNo prior program listed | — | — | — |
Showing the 12 highest prior-minute records. Open the full roster board for every source-listed player.
Recruiting review edition Sep 8, 2026 · coverage is partial (14 programs reviewed). See the full methodology and coverage map before drawing a roster conclusion.
Look ahead / 2026–27
The next assignments.
Checking the live schedule edition…
Little Rock vs Kansas St
66.4Little Rock
81.9Kansas St
Kansas St win estimate86.6%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin15.6
Projected total148.3
80% home-margin range-0.4 to 31.5
Estimated possessions70.7
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.1 pts
Kansas St attack 53.1% · Little Rock defense 52.1%Little Rock attack 50.3% · Kansas St defense 49.1%
Ball securityHome 1.5 pts
Kansas St attack 17.7% · Little Rock defense 18.7%Little Rock attack 18.4% · Kansas St defense 17.9%
Second chancesAway 2.4 pts
Kansas St attack 30.8% · Little Rock defense 33.4%Little Rock attack 30.2% · Kansas St defense 30.4%
Free-throw pressureHome 1.1 pts
Kansas St attack 32.3% · Little Rock defense 35.1%Little Rock attack 29.7% · Kansas St defense 33.5%
Bramlage Coliseum
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Little Rock vs Abilene Chrstn
67.8Little Rock
72.4Abilene Chrstn
Abilene Chrstn win estimate66.2%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin4.7
Projected total140.2
80% home-margin range-11.3 to 20.6
Estimated possessions69.0
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.5 pts
Abilene Chrstn attack 48.5% · Little Rock defense 52.1%Little Rock attack 50.3% · Abilene Chrstn defense 54.3%
Ball securityAway 3.3 pts
Abilene Chrstn attack 18.9% · Little Rock defense 18.7%Little Rock attack 18.4% · Abilene Chrstn defense 21.4%
Second chancesAway 5.4 pts
Abilene Chrstn attack 29.2% · Little Rock defense 33.4%Little Rock attack 30.2% · Abilene Chrstn defense 29.0%
Free-throw pressureHome 20.7 pts
Abilene Chrstn attack 38.1% · Little Rock defense 35.1%Little Rock attack 29.7% · Abilene Chrstn defense 47.3%
Moody Coliseum (Abilene)
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Little Rock vs Tarleton St
67.7Little Rock
73.0Tarleton St
Tarleton St win estimate67.7%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin5.3
Projected total140.7
80% home-margin range-10.6 to 21.2
Estimated possessions68.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.7 pts
Tarleton St attack 48.8% · Little Rock defense 52.1%Little Rock attack 50.3% · Tarleton St defense 52.8%
Ball securityAway 3.5 pts
Tarleton St attack 19.4% · Little Rock defense 18.7%Little Rock attack 18.4% · Tarleton St defense 21.2%
Second chancesAway 2.0 pts
Tarleton St attack 29.6% · Little Rock defense 33.4%Little Rock attack 30.2% · Tarleton St defense 32.0%
Free-throw pressureHome 17.8 pts
Tarleton St attack 38.9% · Little Rock defense 35.1%Little Rock attack 29.7% · Tarleton St defense 43.6%
ECCU Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Read the evidence correctly.
The top-line adjusted ratings use the full published preseason model. Split statistics below them are unadjusted observations from 2025–26. Opponent ranks are the current model’s ranks, not what was known before each historical game. The “top 50” split is descriptive and does not enter model evaluation.
Rates pool numerators and denominators from games with all fields required for that metric. Missing values remain unavailable; every metric shows its game count. Ranks require at least 10 games and compare programs in the model’s rated field. Ties share rank; percentiles use their average position. High percentiles mean favorable values only for metrics with a defined direction.
Player workloads refer to recorded 2025–26 appearances. Estimated usage divides FGA + 0.475 × FTA + turnovers by minutes-prorated team opportunities in those same games. It assumes team opportunity rates were constant while a player was on court; it is not a lineup or play-by-play measurement. Overtime is included in available minutes. Minutes and usage samples can differ.
Source statistics: SportsDataverse bulk releases, CC BY 4.0. Calculations and model: Silvermine. Definitions draw on publicly documented Four Factors and basketball rate statistics; these are not another publisher’s proprietary ratings. Model notebook →